From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 64971 invoked by alias); 2 Jul 2019 14:26:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 64958 invoked by uid 89); 2 Jul 2019 14:26:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Jul 2019 14:26:26 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x62EQOZs017163; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:26:24 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id x62EQNPI017162; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 09:26:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 14:26:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Ilya Leoshkevich Cc: Jakub Jelinek , GCC Patches , krebbel@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] S/390: Improve storing asan frame_pc Message-ID: <20190702142623.GL18316@gate.crashing.org> References: <20190702085154.26981-1-iii@linux.ibm.com> <20190702130216.GI18316@gate.crashing.org> <20190702131957.GJ18316@gate.crashing.org> <3CC32047-1B4E-46E5-B3DE-B53B870CD565@linux.ibm.com> <20190702133935.GN815@tucnak> <89059C46-E9E7-4689-8241-C251148EABC3@linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <89059C46-E9E7-4689-8241-C251148EABC3@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-07/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > Am 02.07.2019 um 15:39 schrieb Jakub Jelinek : > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 03:33:28PM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > >>> Am 02.07.2019 um 15:19 schrieb Segher Boessenkool : > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 08:02:16AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 10:51:54AM +0200, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > >>>>> +#undef TARGET_INSN_ALIGNMENT > >>>>> +#define TARGET_INSN_ALIGNMENT 16 > >>>> > >>>> There already is FUNCTION_BOUNDARY for something similar, which fits in > >>>> well with STACK_BOUNDARY, PARM_BOUNDARY, many more *_BOUNDARY. I realise > >>>> you may prefer a hook, but as long as we aren't getting rid of all the > >>>> other macros, what's the point? > >>> > >>> And maybe LABEL_BOUNDARY is bettter for this than INSN_BOUNDARY as well? > >> > >> Can’t we just use FUNCTION_BOUNDARY then? > >> I think .LASANPC is always emitted at the beginning of a function. > > > > Isn't e.g. the hotpatch sequence emitted before it? > > You are right, with -fpatchable-function-entry it’s moved. > > So, I guess I should stick with the current approach. > I could change TARGET_INSN_ALIGNMENT hook to INSN_BOUNDARY macro if that > would better match the current design. I would still call it INSN, and > not LABEL, because LABEL can refer to data. On some archs LABEL_BOUNDARY can be bigger than INSN_BOUNDARY (just like FUNCTION_BOUNDARY can be even bigger, like on 390 :-) ) Either will work for your purposes afaics. LABEL in RTL is always a CODE_LABEL I think? Maybe CODE_LABEL_BOUNDARY would make it clearer, it's not like a short name for this is useful anyway. Segher